-
G.R
. No.
122
039.
May
31,
200
0.*
VICE
NTE
CA
LALA
S,
petit
ione
r, vs
. CO
URT
O
FAP
PEAL
S,
ELIZ
A JU
JEU
RCH
E SU
NG
A an
dFR
ANCI
SCO
SAL
VA, r
espo
nden
ts.
Judg
men
ts; R
es J
udic
ata;
The
pri
ncip
le o
f re
s ju
dica
ta d
oes
not a
pply
whe
re a
par
ty in
a p
endi
ng c
ase
was
nev
er a
par
ty in
apr
evio
us o
ne.
The
argu
men
t tha
t Sun
ga is
bou
nd b
y th
e ru
ling
inCi
vil C
ase
No.
349
0 fin
ding
the
driv
er a
nd th
e ow
ner
of th
e tr
uck
liabl
e fo
r qu
asi-d
elic
t ign
ores
the
fact
that
she
was
nev
er a
par
tyto
tha
t ca
se a
nd, t
here
fore
, the
pri
ncip
le o
f res
judi
cata
doe
s no
tap
ply.
Nor
are
the
iss
ues
in C
ivil
Case
No.
349
0 an
d in
the
pres
ent
case
the
sam
e. T
he i
ssue
in
Civi
l Ca
se N
o. 3
490
was
whe
ther
Sal
va a
nd h
is d
rive
r Ve
rena
wer
e lia
ble
for
quas
i-del
ict
for
the
dam
age
caus
ed to
pet
ition
ers
jeep
ney.
On
the
othe
r ha
nd,
the
issu
e in
this
case
is w
heth
er p
etiti
oner
is li
able
on
his c
ontr
act
of c
arri
age.
The
firs
t, qu
asi-d
elic
t, al
so k
now
n as
cul
pa a
quili
ana
or c
ulpa
ext
ra c
ontr
actu
al, h
as a
s its
sou
rce
the
negl
igen
ce o
f the
tort
feas
or. T
he s
econ
d, b
reac
h of
con
trac
t or
culp
a co
ntra
ctua
l, is
prem
ised
upo
n th
e ne
glig
ence
in th
e pe
rfor
man
ce o
f a c
ontr
actu
alob
ligat
ion.
Com
mon
Car
rier
s; B
reac
h of
Con
trac
t; Q
uasi
-Del
icts
; To
rts;
In
quas
i-del
ict,
the
negl
igen
ce
or
faul
t sh
ould
be
cl
earl
yes
tabl
ishe
d be
caus
e it
is th
e ba
sis
of th
e ac
tion,
whe
reas
in b
reac
hof
con
trac
t, th
e ac
tion
can
be p
rose
cute
d m
erel
y by
pro
ving
the
exis
tenc
e of
the
con
trac
t an
d th
e fa
ct t
hat
the
oblig
or, i
n th
is c
ase
the
com
mon
car
rier
, fai
led
to tr
ansp
ort h
is p
asse
nger
saf
ely
to h
isde
stin
atio
n.
Con
sequ
ently
, in
qua
si-d
elic
t, th
e ne
glig
ence
or
faul
t sh
ould
be
clea
rly
esta
blis
hed
beca
use
it is
the
bas
is o
f th
eac
tion,
whe
reas
in b
reac
h of
cont
ract
, the
act
ion
can
be p
rose
cute
dm
erel
y by
pro
ving
the
exi
sten
ce o
f the
con
trac
t an
d th
e fa
ct t
hat
the
oblig
or, i
n th
is ca
se th
e co
mm
on ca
rrie
r, fa
iled
to tr
ansp
ort h
ispa
ssen
ger
safe
ly to
his
des
tinat
ion.
In c
ase
of d
eath
or
inju
ries
topa
ssen
gers
, Ar
t. 17
56 o
f th
e Ci
vil
Code
pro
vide
s th
at c
omm
onca
rrie
rs a
re p
resu
med
to
have
bee
n at
fau
lt or
to
have
act
edne
glig
ently
unl
ess
they
pro
ve t
hat
they
obs
erve
d ex
trao
rdin
ary
dilig
ence
as
defin
ed i
n Ar
ts.
1733
and
175
5 of
the
Cod
e. T
his
prov
isio
n ne
cess
arily
shi
fts t
o th
e co
mm
on c
arri
er t
he b
urde
n of
proo
f.
____
____
____
___
* SEC
ON
D D
IVIS
ION
.
357
VOL.
332
, MAY
31,
200
035
7
Cal
alas
vs.
Cou
rt o
f App
eals
Sam
e; S
ame;
Sam
e; S
ame;
Doc
trin
e of
Pro
xim
ate
Cau
se; T
hedo
ctri
ne o
f pro
xim
ate
caus
e is
app
licab
le o
nly
in a
ctio
ns fo
r qu
asi-
delic
ts,
not
in a
ctio
ns i
nvol
ving
bre
ach
of c
ontr
act.
Ther
e is
,th
us, n
o ba
sis
for
the
cont
entio
n th
at th
e ru
ling
in C
ivil
Case
No.
3490
, fin
ding
Sal
va a
nd h
is d
rive
r Ver
ena
liabl
e fo
r the
dam
age
tope
titio
ners
jeep
ney,
sho
uld
be b
indi
ng o
n Su
nga.
It is
imm
ater
ial
that
the
prox
imat
e ca
use
of th
e co
llisi
on b
etw
een
the
jeep
ney
and
the
truc
k w
as t
he n
eglig
ence
of t
he t
ruck
dri
ver.
The
doct
rine
of
prox
imat
e ca
use
is a
pplic
able
onl
y in
act
ions
for
quas
i-del
ict,
not
in a
ctio
ns in
volv
ing
brea
ch o
f con
trac
t. Th
e do
ctri
ne is
a d
evic
e fo
rim
putin
g lia
bilit
y to
a p
erso
n w
here
ther
e is
no
rela
tion
betw
een
him
and
ano
ther
par
ty. I
n su
ch a
case
, the
obl
igat
ion
is cr
eate
d by
law
itse
lf. B
ut, w
here
the
re is
a p
re-e
xist
ing
cont
ract
ual r
elat
ion
betw
een
the
part
ies,
it is
the
par
ties
them
selv
es w
ho c
reat
e th
eob
ligat
ion,
and
the
func
tion
of t
he la
w is
mer
ely
to r
egul
ate
the
rela
tion
thus
crea
ted.
Sam
e; S
ame;
Sam
e; S
ame;
Pre
sum
ptio
n of
Neg
ligen
ce; U
pon
the
happ
enin
g of
the
acc
iden
t, th
e pr
esum
ptio
n of
neg
ligen
ce a
ton
ce a
rise
s, a
nd it
bec
omes
the
dut
y of
a c
omm
on c
arri
er t
o pr
ove
that
he
ob
serv
ed
extr
aord
inar
y di
ligen
ce
in
the
care
of
hi
spa
ssen
gers
.In
the
cas
e at
bar
, up
on t
he h
appe
ning
of
the
acci
dent
, th
e pr
esum
ptio
n of
neg
ligen
ce a
t on
ce a
rose
, an
d it
beca
me
the
duty
of
pe
titio
ner
to
prov
e th
at
he
obse
rved
extr
aord
inar
y di
ligen
ce in
the
care
of h
is p
asse
nger
s. N
ow, d
id th
edr
iver
of
jeep
ney
carr
y Su
nga
saf
ely
as f
ar a
s hu
man
car
e an
dfo
resi
ght
coul
d pr
ovid
e,
usin
g th
e ut
mos
t di
ligen
ce
of
very
caut
ious
per
sons
, with
due
reg
ard
for
all
the
circ
umst
ance
s a
sre
quir
ed b
y Ar
t. 17
55? W
e do
not
thin
k so
. Sev
eral
fact
ors m
ilita
teag
ains
t pet
ition
ers
cont
entio
n.
Sam
e; S
ame;
For
tuito
us E
vent
; W
ords
and
Phr
ases
; Th
eta
king
of a
n e
xten
sion
sea
t is
not
an
impl
ied
assu
mpt
ion
of r
isk
on t
he p
art
of t
he p
asse
nger
; A
caso
for
tuito
is
an e
vent
whi
chco
uld
not
be f
ores
een,
or
whi
ch,
thou
gh f
ores
een,
was
ine
vita
ble;
Req
uisi
tes.
W
e fin
d it
hard
to g
ive
seri
ous
thou
ght t
o pe
titio
ners
cont
entio
n th
at S
unga
s ta
king
an
ext
ensi
on s
eat
am
ount
ed t
o
-
an i
mpl
ied
assu
mpt
ion
of r
isk.
It
is a
kin
to a
rgui
ng t
hat
the
inju
ries
to
the
man
y vi
ctim
s of
the
tra
gedi
es in
our
sea
s sh
ould
not
be c
ompe
nsat
ed m
erel
y be
caus
e th
ose
pass
enge
rs a
ssum
ed a
grea
ter
risk
of d
row
ning
by
boar
ding
an
over
load
ed fe
rry.
Thi
s is
also
true
of p
etiti
oner
s co
nten
tion
that
the
jeep
ney
bein
g bu
mpe
dw
hile
it w
as im
prop
erly
par
ked
cons
titut
es c
aso
fort
uito
. A c
aso
fort
uito
is a
n ev
ent w
hich
coul
d no
t
358
358
SUPR
EME
COU
RT R
EPO
RTS
ANN
OTA
TED
Cal
alas
vs.
Cou
rt o
f App
eals
be f
ores
een,
or
whi
ch,
thou
gh f
ores
een,
was
ine
vita
ble.
Thi
sre
quir
es th
at th
e fo
llow
ing
requ
irem
ents
be
pres
ent:
(a) t
he c
ause
of t
he b
reac
h is
inde
pend
ent
of t
he d
ebto
rs w
ill; (
b) t
he e
vent
isun
fore
seea
ble
or u
navo
idab
le; (
c) th
e ev
ent i
s su
ch a
s to
ren
der
itim
poss
ible
for
the
deb
tor
to f
ulfil
l hi
s ob
ligat
ion
in a
nor
mal
man
ner;
and
(d) t
he d
ebto
r did
not
take
par
t in
caus
ing
the
inju
ryto
the
cre
dito
r. Pe
titio
ner
shou
ld h
ave
fore
seen
the
dan
ger
ofpa
rkin
g hi
s je
epne
y w
ith it
s bo
dy p
rotr
udin
g tw
o m
eter
s in
to th
ehi
ghw
ay.
Sam
e; S
ame;
Dam
ages
; As
a ge
nera
l rul
e, m
oral
dam
ages
are
not
reco
vera
ble
in a
ctio
ns f
or d
amag
es p
redi
cate
d on
a b
reac
h of
cont
ract
for
it is
not
one
of t
he it
ems
enum
erat
ed u
nder
Art
. 221
9of
the
Civ
il C
ode.
As
a g
ener
al r
ule,
mor
al d
amag
es a
re n
otre
cove
rabl
e in
act
ions
for
dam
ages
pre
dica
ted
on a
bre
ach
ofco
ntra
ct fo
r it
is n
ot o
ne o
f the
item
s en
umer
ated
und
er A
rt. 2
219
of th
e Ci
vil C
ode.
As
an e
xcep
tion,
suc
h da
mag
es a
re r
ecov
erab
le:
(1)
in c
ases
in
whi
ch t
he m
isha
p re
sults
in
the
deat
h of
apa
ssen
ger,
as p
rovi
ded
in A
rt. 1
764,
in r
elat
ion
to A
rt. 2
206(
3) o
fth
e Ci
vil C
ode;
and
(2) i
n th
e ca
ses i
n w
hich
the
carr
ier i
s gui
lty o
ffr
aud
or b
ad fa
ith, a
s pro
vide
d in
Art
. 222
0.
Sam
e; B
ad F
aith
; Th
e co
mm
on c
arri
ers
adm
issi
on i
n op
enco
urt t
hat h
is d
rive
r fa
iled
to a
ssis
t the
inju
red
pass
enge
r in
goi
ngto
a n
earb
y ho
spita
l ca
nnot
be
cons
true
d as
an
adm
issi
on o
f ba
dfa
ith.
In t
his
case
, th
ere
is n
o le
gal
basi
s fo
r aw
ardi
ng m
oral
dam
ages
sin
ce th
ere
was
no
fact
ual f
indi
ng b
y th
e ap
pella
te c
ourt
that
pet
ition
er a
cted
in
bad
faith
in
the
perf
orm
ance
of
the
cont
ract
of
ca
rria
ge.
Sung
as
cont
entio
n th
at
petit
ione
rsad
mis
sion
in
open
cou
rt t
hat
the
driv
er o
f th
e je
epne
y fa
iled
toas
sist
her
in g
oing
to a
nea
rby
hosp
ital c
anno
t be
cons
true
d as
an
adm
issi
on o
f bad
faith
. The
fact
that
it w
as th
e dr
iver
of t
he Is
uzu
truc
k w
ho to
ok h
er to
the
hosp
ital d
oes
not i
mpl
y th
at p
etiti
oner
was
utt
erly
indi
ffere
nt to
the
plig
ht o
f his
inju
red
pass
enge
r. If
atal
l, it
is m
erel
y im
plie
d re
cogn
ition
by
Vere
na th
at h
e w
as th
e on
eat
faul
t for
the
acci
dent
.
PETI
TIO
N fo
r rev
iew
on
cert
iora
ri o
f a d
ecis
ion
of th
eCo
urt o
f App
eals
.
The
fact
s are
stat
ed in
the
opin
ion
of th
e Co
urt.
L
eo B
. Dio
cos f
or p
etiti
oner
.
359
VOL.
332
, MAY
31,
200
035
9C
alal
as v
s. C
ourt
of A
ppea
ls
E
nriq
ue S
. Em
pleo
for p
riva
te re
spon
dent
Sun
ga.
E
duar
do T
. Sed
illo
for p
riva
te re
spon
dent
Sal
va.
MEN
DO
ZA, J
.:
This
is a
pet
ition
for
revi
ew o
n ce
rtio
rari
of t
he d
ecis
ion1
of
the
Cour
t of A
ppea
ls, d
ated
Mar
ch 3
1, 1
991,
rev
ersi
ng th
eco
ntra
ry d
ecis
ion
of t
he R
egio
nal
Tria
l Co
urt,
Bran
ch 3
6,D
umag
uete
City
, and
aw
ardi
ng d
amag
es in
stea
d to
pri
vate
resp
onde
nt E
liza
Juje
urch
e Su
nga
as p
lain
tiff i
n an
act
ion
for b
reac
h of
cont
ract
of c
arri
age.
The
fact
s, as
fou
nd b
y th
e Co
urt
of A
ppea
ls,
are
asfo
llow
s:At
10
oclo
ck in
the
mor
ning
of A
ugus
t 23,
198
9, p
riva
tere
spon
dent
El
iza
Juje
urch
e G
. Su
nga,
th
en
a co
llege
fres
hman
maj
orin
g in
Phy
sica
l Ed
ucat
ion
at t
he S
ilim
anU
nive
rsity
, too
k a
pass
enge
r je
epne
y ow
ned
and
oper
ated
by p
etiti
oner
Vic
ente
Cal
alas
. As
the
jeep
ney
was
fille
d to
capa
city
of
abou
t 24
pas
seng
ers,
Sung
a w
as g
iven
by
the
cond
ucto
r an
ext
ensi
on se
at,
a w
oode
n st
ool a
t the
bac
k of
the
door
at t
he re
ar e
nd o
f the
veh
icle
.O
n th
e w
ay to
Pob
laci
on S
ibul
an, N
egro
s O
ccid
enta
l, th
eje
epne
y st
oppe
d to
let a
pas
seng
er o
ff. A
s sh
e w
as s
eate
d at
the
rear
of
the
vehi
cle,
Sun
ga g
ave
way
to
the
outg
oing
pass
enge
r. Ju
st a
s sh
e w
as d
oing
so,
an
Isuz
u tr
uck
driv
enby
Igle
ceri
o Ve
rena
and
ow
ned
by F
ranc
isco
Sal
va b
umpe
dth
e le
ft re
ar p
ortio
n of
the
jeep
ney.
As
a re
sult,
Sun
ga w
asin
jure
d. S
he s
usta
ined
a fr
actu
re o
f the
dis
tal t
hird
of t
hele
ft tib
ia-fi
bula
with
sev
ere
necr
osis
of
the
unde
rlyi
ngsk
in.
Clos
ed r
educ
tion
of t
he f
ract
ure,
lon
g le
g ci
rcul
arca
stin
g, a
nd c
ase
wed
ging
wer
e do
ne u
nder
sed
atio
n. H
erco
nfin
emen
t in
the
hos
pita
l la
sted
fro
m A
ugus
t 23
to
Sept
embe
r 7,
198
9. H
er a
tten
ding
phy
sici
an, D
r. D
anilo
V.
Olig
ario
, an
orth
oped
ic s
urge
on, c
ertif
ied
she
wou
ld re
mai
n
-
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
on a
cast
for a
per
iod
of
____
____
____
___
1 Per
Jus
tice
Arte
mon
D. L
una
and
conc
urre
d in
by
Just
ices
Hec
tor
L.H
ofile
na a
nd B
.A. A
defu
in-d
ela
Cruz
.
360
360
SUPR
EME
COU
RT R
EPO
RTS
ANN
OTA
TED
Cal
alas
vs.
Cou
rt o
f App
eals
thre
e m
onth
s an
d w
ould
hav
e to
am
bula
te i
n cr
utch
esdu
ring
said
per
iod.
On
Oct
ober
9, 1
989,
Sun
ga fi
led
a co
mpl
aint
for d
amag
esag
ains
t Ca
lala
s, al
legi
ng
viol
atio
n of
th
e co
ntra
ct
ofca
rria
ge b
y th
e fo
rmer
in
faili
ng t
o ex
erci
se t
he d
ilige
nce
requ
ired
of h
im a
s a
com
mon
car
rier
. Cal
alas
, on
the
othe
rha
nd,
filed
a
thir
d-pa
rty
com
plai
nt
agai
nst
Fran
cisc
oSa
lva,
the
owne
r of t
he Is
uzu
truc
k.Th
e lo
wer
cou
rt r
ende
red
judg
men
t ag
ains
t Sa
lva
asth
irdp
arty
def
enda
nt a
nd a
bsol
ved
Cala
las
of l
iabi
lity,
hold
ing
that
it w
as t
he d
rive
r of
the
Isu
zu t
ruck
who
was
resp
onsi
ble
for
the
acci
dent
. It
took
cog
niza
nce
of a
noth
erca
se (
Civi
l Cas
e N
o. 3
490)
, file
d by
Cal
alas
aga
inst
Sal
vaan
d Ve
rena
, fo
r qu
asi-d
elic
t, in
whi
ch B
ranc
h 37
of
the
sam
e co
urt
held
Sal
va a
nd h
is d
rive
r Ve
rena
join
tly li
able
to C
alal
as fo
r the
dam
age
to h
is je
epne
y.O
n ap
peal
to
the
Cour
t of
App
eals
, th
e ru
ling
of t
helo
wer
cou
rt w
as r
ever
sed
on th
e gr
ound
that
Sun
gas
caus
eof
act
ion
was
bas
ed o
n a
cont
ract
of
carr
iage
, no
t qu
asi-
delic
t, an
d th
at t
he c
omm
on c
arri
er f
aile
d to
exe
rcis
e th
edi
ligen
ce r
equi
red
unde
r th
e Ci
vil
Code
. Th
e ap
pella
teco
urt d
ism
isse
d th
e th
irdp
arty
com
plai
nt a
gain
st S
alva
and
adju
dged
Ca
lala
s lia
ble
for
dam
ages
to
Su
nga.
Th
edi
spos
itive
por
tion
of it
s dec
isio
n re
ads:
WH
EREF
ORE
, the
dec
isio
n ap
peal
ed fr
om is
her
eby
REVE
RSED
and
SET
ASID
E, a
nd a
noth
er o
ne is
ent
ered
ord
erin
g de
fend
ant-
appe
llee
Vice
nte
Cala
las t
o pa
y pl
aint
iff-a
ppel
lant
:
P50,
000.
00 a
s act
ual a
nd co
mpe
nsat
ory
dam
ages
;P5
0,00
0.00
as m
oral
dam
ages
;P1
0,00
0.00
as a
ttor
neys
fees
; and
P1,0
00.0
0 as
exp
ense
s of l
itiga
tion;
and
to p
ay th
e co
sts.
SO O
RDER
ED.
Hen
ce, t
his
petit
ion.
Pet
ition
er c
onte
nds
that
the
rulin
g in
Civi
l Cas
e N
o. 3
490
that
the
negl
igen
ce o
f Ver
ena
was
the 361
VOL.
332
, MAY
31,
200
036
1C
alal
as v
s. C
ourt
of A
ppea
ls
prox
imat
e ca
use
of t
he a
ccid
ent
nega
tes
his
liabi
lity
and
that
to
rule
oth
erw
ise
wou
ld b
e to
mak
e th
e co
mm
onca
rrie
r an
ins
urer
of
the
safe
ty o
f its
pas
seng
ers.
He
cont
ends
tha
t th
e bu
mpi
ng o
f th
e je
epne
y by
the
tru
ckow
ned
by S
alva
was
a c
aso
fort
uito
. Pe
titio
ner
furt
her
assa
ils t
he a
war
d of
mor
al d
amag
es t
o Su
nga
on t
hegr
ound
that
it is
not
supp
orte
d by
evi
denc
e.Th
e pe
titio
n ha
s no
mer
it.Th
e ar
gum
ent t
hat S
unga
is b
ound
by
the
rulin
g in
Civ
ilCa
se N
o. 3
490
findi
ng th
e dr
iver
and
the
owne
r of t
he tr
uck
liabl
e fo
r qu
asi-d
elic
t ign
ores
the
fact
that
she
was
nev
er a
part
y to
tha
t ca
se a
nd,
ther
efor
e, t
he p
rinc
iple
of
res
judi
cata
doe
s not
app
ly.
Nor
are
the
iss
ues
in C
ivil
Case
No.
349
0 an
d in
the
pres
ent
case
the
sam
e. T
he i
ssue
in
Civi
l Ca
se N
o. 3
490
was
whe
ther
Sal
va a
nd h
is d
rive
r Ve
rena
wer
e lia
ble
for
quas
idel
ict
for
the
dam
age
caus
ed t
o pe
titio
ners
jeep
ney.
On
the
othe
r ha
nd,
the
issu
e in
thi
s ca
se i
s w
heth
erpe
titio
ner
is l
iabl
e on
his
con
trac
t of
car
riag
e. T
he f
irst
,qu
asi-d
elic
t, al
so k
now
n as
cul
pa a
quili
ana
or c
ulpa
ext
raco
ntra
ctua
l, ha
s as
its
so
urce
th
e ne
glig
ence
of
th
eto
rtfe
asor
. Th
e se
cond
, br
each
of
co
ntra
ct
or
culp
aco
ntra
ctua
l, is
pr
emis
ed
upon
th
e ne
glig
ence
in
th
epe
rfor
man
ce o
f a co
ntra
ctua
l obl
igat
ion.
Cons
eque
ntly
, in
qua
si-d
elic
t, th
e ne
glig
ence
or
faul
tsh
ould
be
clea
rly
esta
blis
hed
beca
use
it is
the
bas
is o
f the
actio
n, w
here
as i
n br
each
of
cont
ract
, th
e ac
tion
can
bepr
osec
uted
mer
ely
by p
rovi
ng th
e ex
iste
nce
of th
e co
ntra
ctan
d th
e fa
ct t
hat
the
oblig
or,
in t
his
case
the
com
mon
carr
ier,
faile
d to
tra
nspo
rt h
is p
asse
nger
saf
ely
to h
isde
stin
atio
n.2 I
n ca
se o
f dea
th o
r inj
urie
s to
pas
seng
ers,
Art.
1756
of t
he C
ivil
Code
pro
vide
s th
at c
omm
on c
arri
ers
are
pres
umed
to h
ave
been
at f
ault
or to
hav
e ac
ted
negl
igen
tlyun
less
th
ey
prov
e th
at
they
ob
serv
ed
extr
aord
inar
ydi
ligen
ce a
s def
ined
in A
rts.
1733
and
____
____
____
___
2 Se
e B.
BAL
DER
RAM
A, T
HE
PHIL
IPPI
NE
LAW
ON
TO
RTS
AND
DAM
AGES
20
(195
3).
-
362
362
SUPR
EME
COU
RT R
EPO
RTS
ANN
OTA
TED
Cal
alas
vs.
Cou
rt o
f App
eals
1755
of
the
Code
. Thi
s pr
ovis
ion
nece
ssar
ily s
hifts
to
the
com
mon
carr
ier t
he b
urde
n of
pro
of.
Ther
e is
, thu
s, no
bas
is fo
r the
cont
entio
n th
at th
e ru
ling
in C
ivil
Case
No.
349
0, fi
ndin
g Sa
lva
and
his
driv
er V
eren
alia
ble
for
the
dam
age
to p
etiti
oner
s je
epne
y, s
houl
d be
bind
ing
on S
unga
. It
is
imm
ater
ial
that
the
pro
xim
ate
caus
e of
the
col
lisio
n be
twee
n th
e je
epne
y an
d th
e tr
uck
was
the
neg
ligen
ce o
f th
e tr
uck
driv
er.
The
doct
rine
of
prox
imat
e ca
use
is a
pplic
able
onl
y in
act
ions
for
qua
si-
delic
t, no
t in
act
ions
inv
olvi
ng b
reac
h of
con
trac
t. Th
edo
ctri
ne is
a d
evic
e fo
r im
putin
g lia
bilit
y to
a p
erso
n w
here
ther
e is
no
rela
tion
betw
een
him
and
ano
ther
par
ty.
Insu
ch a
cas
e, t
he o
blig
atio
n is
cre
ated
by
law
its
elf.
But,
whe
re t
here
is a
pre
-exi
stin
g co
ntra
ctua
l rel
atio
n be
twee
nth
e pa
rtie
s, it
is t
he p
artie
s th
emse
lves
who
cre
ate
the
oblig
atio
n, a
nd th
e fu
nctio
n of
the
law
is m
erel
y to
regu
late
the
rela
tion
thus
cre
ated
. Ins
ofar
as
cont
ract
s of
car
riag
ear
e co
ncer
ned,
som
e as
pect
s re
gula
ted
by t
he C
ivil
Code
are
thos
e re
spec
ting
the
dilig
ence
req
uire
d of
com
mon
carr
iers
with
reg
ard
to t
he s
afet
y of
pas
seng
ers
as w
ell a
sth
e pr
esum
ptio
n of
neg
ligen
ce in
case
s of
dea
th o
r inj
ury
topa
ssen
gers
. It p
rovi
des:
ART.
173
3. C
omm
on c
arri
ers,
from
the
nat
ure
of t
heir
bus
ines
san
d fo
r re
ason
s of
pu
blic
po
licy,
ar
e bo
und
to
obse
rve
extr
aord
inar
y di
ligen
ce in
the
vigi
lanc
e ov
er th
e go
ods
and
for t
hesa
fety
of t
he p
asse
nger
s tr
ansp
orte
d by
them
, acc
ordi
ng to
all
the
circ
umst
ance
s of e
ach
case
.Su
ch e
xtra
ordi
nary
dili
genc
e in
the
vigi
lanc
e ov
er th
e go
ods
isfu
rthe
r ex
pres
sed
in a
rtic
les
1734
, 173
5, a
nd 1
746,
Nos
. 5, 6
, and
7,
whi
le
the
extr
aord
inar
y di
ligen
ce
for
the
safe
ty
of
the
pass
enge
rs is
furt
her s
et fo
rth
in a
rtic
les 1
755
and
1756
.AR
T. 1
755.
A c
omm
on c
arri
er is
bou
nd to
car
ry th
e pa
ssen
gers
safe
ly a
s fa
r as
hum
an c
are
and
fore
sigh
t ca
n pr
ovid
e, u
sing
the
utm
ost d
ilige
nce
of v
ery
caut
ious
per
sons
, with
due
reg
ard
for
all
the
circ
umst
ance
s.AR
T. 1
756.
In
case
of
deat
h of
or
inju
ries
to
pass
enge
rs,
com
mon
car
rier
s ar
e pr
esum
ed t
o ha
ve b
een
at f
ault
or t
o ha
veac
ted
negl
igen
tly,
unle
ss
they
pr
ove
that
th
ey
obse
rved
extr
aord
inar
y di
ligen
ce a
s pre
scri
bed
by a
rtic
les 1
733
and
1755
. 363
VOL.
332
, MAY
31,
200
036
3C
alal
as v
s. C
ourt
of A
ppea
ls
In th
e ca
se a
t bar
, upo
n th
e ha
ppen
ing
of th
e ac
cide
nt, t
hepr
esum
ptio
n of
neg
ligen
ce a
t onc
e ar
ose,
and
it b
ecam
e th
edu
ty o
f pet
ition
er t
o pr
ove
that
he
obse
rved
ext
raor
dina
rydi
ligen
ce in
the
care
of h
is p
asse
nger
s.N
ow, d
id th
e dr
iver
of j
eepn
ey ca
rry
Sung
a s
afel
y as
far
as h
uman
car
e an
d fo
resi
ght
coul
d pr
ovid
e, u
sing
the
utm
ost d
ilige
nce
of v
ery
caut
ious
per
sons
, with
due
reg
ard
for
all t
he c
ircu
mst
ance
s a
s re
quir
ed b
y Ar
t. 17
55?
We
dono
t th
ink
so.
Seve
ral
fact
ors
mili
tate
aga
inst
pet
ition
ers
cont
entio
n.Fi
rst,
as fo
und
by th
e Co
urt o
f App
eals
, the
jeep
ney
was
not
prop
erly
par
ked,
its
rear
por
tion
bein
g ex
pose
d ab
out
two
met
ers
from
the
bro
ad s
houl
ders
of t
he h
ighw
ay, a
ndfa
cing
the
mid
dle
of th
e hi
ghw
ay in
a d
iago
nal a
ngle
. Thi
sis
a v
iola
tion
of th
e R.
A. N
o. 4
136,
as a
men
ded,
or t
he L
and
Tran
spor
tatio
n an
d Tr
affic
Cod
e, w
hich
pro
vide
s:
Sec.
54. O
bstr
uctio
n of
Tra
ffic.
N
o pe
rson
sha
ll dr
ive
his
mot
orve
hicl
e in
suc
h a
man
ner
as to
obs
truc
t or
impe
de th
e pa
ssag
e of
any
vehi
cle,
nor
, w
hile
dis
char
ging
or
taki
ng o
n pa
ssen
gers
or
load
ing
or u
nloa
ding
fre
ight
, ob
stru
ct t
he f
ree
pass
age
of o
ther
vehi
cles
on
the
high
way
.
Seco
nd,
it is
und
ispu
ted
that
pet
ition
ers
driv
er t
ook
inm
ore
pass
enge
rs t
han
the
allo
wed
sea
ting
capa
city
of
the
jeep
ney,
a v
iola
tion
of
32(a
) of t
he sa
me
law
. It p
rovi
des:
Exc
eedi
ng r
egis
tere
d ca
paci
ty.
No
pers
on o
pera
ting
any
mot
orve
hicl
e sh
all a
llow
mor
e pa
ssen
gers
or m
ore
frei
ght o
r car
go in
his
vehi
cle
than
its r
egis
tere
d ca
paci
ty.
The
fact
tha
t Su
nga
was
sea
ted
in a
n e
xten
sion
sea
tpl
aced
her
in a
per
il gr
eate
r th
an t
hat
to w
hich
the
oth
erpa
ssen
gers
w
ere
expo
sed.
Th
eref
ore,
no
t on
ly
was
petit
ione
r un
able
to
ov
erco
me
the
pres
umpt
ion
ofne
glig
ence
im
pose
d on
him
for
the
inj
ury
sust
aine
d by
Sung
a, b
ut a
lso,
the
evi
denc
e sh
ows
he w
as a
ctua
llyne
glig
ent i
n tr
ansp
ortin
g pa
ssen
gers
.W
e fin
d it
hard
to
give
ser
ious
tho
ught
to
petit
ione
rsco
nten
tion
that
Su
nga
s ta
king
an
e
xten
sion
se
at
amou
nted
to
an i
mpl
ied
assu
mpt
ion
of r
isk.
It
is a
kin
toar
guin
g th
at th
e
364
364
SUPR
EME
COU
RT R
EPO
RTS
ANN
OTA
TED
-
Cal
alas
vs.
Cou
rt o
f App
eals
inju
ries
to
the
man
y vi
ctim
s of
the
tra
gedi
es i
n ou
r se
assh
ould
no
t be
co
mpe
nsat
ed
mer
ely
beca
use
thos
epa
ssen
gers
ass
umed
a g
reat
er ri
sk o
f dro
wni
ng b
y bo
ardi
ngan
ov
erlo
aded
fe
rry.
Th
is
is
also
tr
ue
of
petit
ione
rsco
nten
tion
that
the
jee
pney
bei
ng b
umpe
d w
hile
it
was
impr
oper
ly p
arke
d co
nstit
utes
cas
o fo
rtui
to. A
cas
o fo
rtui
tois
an
even
t w
hich
cou
ld n
ot b
e fo
rese
en, o
r w
hich
, tho
ugh
fore
seen
, was
inev
itabl
e.3 T
his
requ
ires
tha
t th
e fo
llow
ing
requ
irem
ents
be
pres
ent:
(a)
the
caus
e of
the
bre
ach
isin
depe
nden
t of
th
e de
btor
s w
ill;
(b)
the
even
t is
unfo
rese
eabl
e or
una
void
able
; (c
) th
e ev
ent
is s
uch
as t
ore
nder
it im
poss
ible
for t
he d
ebto
r to
fulfi
ll hi
s obl
igat
ion
ina
norm
al m
anne
r; an
d (d
) the
deb
tor
did
not
take
par
t in
caus
ing
the
inju
ry t
o th
e cr
edito
r.4 P
etiti
oner
sho
uld
have
fore
seen
the
dan
ger
of p
arki
ng h
is j
eepn
ey w
ith i
ts b
ody
prot
rudi
ng tw
o m
eter
s int
o th
e hi
ghw
ay.
Fina
lly,
petit
ione
r ch
alle
nges
th
e aw
ard
of
mor
alda
mag
es a
llegi
ng t
hat
it is
exc
essi
ve a
nd w
ithou
t ba
sis
inla
w. W
e fin
d th
is co
nten
tion
wel
l tak
en.
In a
war
ding
mor
al d
amag
es,
the
Cour
t of
App
eals
stat
ed:
Plai
ntiff
-app
ella
nt a
t th
e tim
e of
the
acc
iden
t w
as a
fir
st-y
ear
colle
ge s
tude
nt i
n th
at s
choo
l ye
ar 1
989-
1990
at
the
Silli
man
Uni
vers
ity, m
ajor
ing
in P
hysi
cal E
duca
tion.
Bec
ause
of t
he in
jury
,sh
e w
as n
ot a
ble
to e
nrol
l in
the
seco
nd s
emes
ter
of t
hat
scho
olye
ar. S
he t
estif
ied
that
she
had
no
mor
e in
tent
ion
of c
ontin
uing
with
her
sch
oolin
g, b
ecau
se s
he c
ould
not
wal
k an
d de
cide
d no
t to
purs
ue h
er d
egre
e, m
ajor
in
Phys
ical
Edu
catio
n b
ecau
se o
f m
yle
g w
hich
has
a d
efec
t alr
eady
.Pl
aint
iff-a
ppel
lant
lik
ewis
e te
stifi
ed t
hat
even
whi
le s
he w
asun
der
conf
inem
ent,
she
crie
d in
pai
n be
caus
e of
her
inju
red
left
foot
. As
a r
esul
t of
her
inj
ury,
the
Ort
hope
dic
Surg
eon
also
cert
ified
tha
t sh
e ha
s r
esid
ual b
owin
g of
the
frac
ture
sid
e.
She
likew
ise
deci
ded
not t
o fu
rthe
r pu
rsue
Phy
sica
l Edu
catio
n as
her
maj
or su
bjec
t, be
caus
e m
y le
ft le
g x
x x
has a
def
ect a
lrea
dy.
____
____
____
___
3 CIV
IL C
OD
E, A
RT. 1
174.
4 Ju
an F
. Nak
pil
& S
ons
v. C
ourt
of
Appe
als,
144
SCRA
596
(19
86);
Vasq
uez
v. C
ourt
of
Appe
als,
138
SCRA
553
(19
85);
Repu
blic
v.
Luzo
nSt
eved
orin
g Co
rp.,
128
Phil.
313
(196
7).
365
VOL.
332
, MAY
31,
200
036
5
Cal
alas
vs.
Cou
rt o
f App
eals
Thos
e ar
e he
r ph
ysic
al p
ains
and
mor
al s
uffe
ring
s, th
e in
evita
ble
bedf
ello
ws
of th
e in
juri
es th
at s
he s
uffe
red.
Und
er A
rtic
le 2
219
ofth
e Ci
vil
Code
, she
is
entit
led
to r
ecov
er m
oral
dam
ages
in
the
sum
of P
50,0
00.0
0, w
hich
is fa
ir, j
ust a
nd re
ason
able
.
As a
gen
eral
rul
e, m
oral
dam
ages
are
not
rec
over
able
in
actio
ns fo
r da
mag
es p
redi
cate
d on
a b
reac
h of
con
trac
t fo
rit
is n
ot o
ne o
f the
item
s enu
mer
ated
und
er A
rt. 2
219
of th
eCi
vil C
ode.
5 As a
n ex
cept
ion,
such
dam
ages
are
reco
vera
ble:
(1) i
n ca
ses
in w
hich
the
mis
hap
resu
lts in
the
dea
th o
f apa
ssen
ger,
as p
rovi
ded
in A
rt.
1764
, in
rel
atio
n to
Art
.22
06(3
) of t
he C
ivil
Code
; and
(2) i
n th
e ca
ses
in w
hich
the
carr
ier
is g
uilty
of
frau
d or
bad
fai
th, a
s pr
ovid
ed in
Art
.22
20.6
In t
his
case
, the
re is
no
lega
l bas
is fo
r aw
ardi
ng m
oral
dam
ages
si
nce
ther
e w
as
no
fact
ual
findi
ng
by
the
appe
llate
cou
rt t
hat
petit
ione
r ac
ted
in b
ad f
aith
in
the
perf
orm
ance
of t
he c
ontr
act o
f car
riag
e. S
unga
s co
nten
tion
that
pet
ition
ers
adm
issi
on in
ope
n co
urt t
hat t
he d
rive
r of
the
jeep
ney
faile
d to
ass
ist h
er in
goi
ng to
a n
earb
y ho
spita
lca
nnot
be
cons
true
d as
an
adm
issi
on o
f bad
faith
. The
fact
that
it w
as th
e dr
iver
of t
he Is
uzu
truc
k w
ho to
ok h
er to
the
hosp
ital
does
no
t im
ply
that
pe
titio
ner
was
ut
terl
yin
diffe
rent
to th
e pl
ight
of h
is in
jure
d pa
ssen
ger.
If at
all,
itis
mer
ely
impl
ied
reco
gniti
on b
y Ve
rena
tha
t he
was
the
one
at fa
ult f
or th
e ac
cide
nt.
WH
EREF
ORE
, th
e de
cisi
on o
f th
e Co
urt
of A
ppea
ls,
date
d M
arch
31,
199
5, a
nd it
s re
solu
tion,
dat
ed S
epte
mbe
r11
, 199
5, a
re A
FFIR
MED
, with
the
MO
DIF
ICAT
ION
tha
tth
e aw
ard
of m
oral
dam
ages
is D
ELET
ED.
SO O
RDER
ED.
B
ello
sillo
(Cha
irm
an) a
nd B
uena
, JJ.
, con
cur.
____
____
____
___
5 For
es v
. Mir
anda
, 105
Phi
l. 23
6 (1
959)
; Mer
cado
v. L
ira,
3 S
CRA
124
(196
1).
6 Phi
lippi
ne R
abbi
t Bus
Lin
es, I
nc. v
. Esg
uerr
a, 1
17 S
CRA
741
(198
2);
Sabe
na B
elgi
an W
orld
Air
lines
v. C
ourt
of A
ppea
ls, 1
71 S
CRA
620
(198
9);
Chin
a Ai
rlin
es,
Ltd.
v.
Inte
rmed
iate
App
ella
te C
ourt
, 16
9 SC
RA 2
26(1
989)
.
366
366
SUPR
EME
COU
RT R
EPO
RTS
ANN
OTA
TED
-
Peop
le v
s. D
oino
g
Q
uisu
mbi
ng a
nd D
e Le
on, J
r., J
J., O
n le
ave.
Judg
men
t affi
rmed
with
mod
ifica
tion.
Notes.
The
rule
s on
ext
raor
dina
ry r
espo
nsib
ility
of
com
mon
car
rier
s re
mai
n ba
sica
lly u
ncha
nged
eve
n w
hen
the
cont
ract
is b
reac
hed
by t
ort
alth
ough
non
cont
radi
ctor
ypr
inci
ples
on
quas
i-del
ict
may
the
n be
ass
imila
ted
as a
lso
form
ing
part
of t
he g
over
ning
law
. (Sa
bena
Bel
gian
Wor
ldAi
rlin
es v
s. C
ourt
of A
ppea
ls, 2
55 S
CRA
38 [1
996]
)Pr
oxim
ate
caus
e,
whi
ch
is
dete
rmin
ed
by
a m
ixed
cons
ider
atio
n of
logi
c, co
mm
on s
ense
, pol
icy
and
prec
eden
t,is
tha
t ca
use
whi
ch, i
n na
tura
l an
d co
ntin
uous
seq
uenc
e,un
brok
en b
y an
y ef
ficie
nt in
terv
enin
g ca
use,
pro
duce
s th
ein
jury
, an
d w
ithou
t w
hich
the
res
ult
wou
ld n
ot h
ave
occu
rred
. (B
ank
of t
he P
hilip
pine
Isl
ands
vs.
Cou
rt o
fAp
peal
s, 64
1 SC
RA 3
26 [2
000]
)W
hile
the
driv
er o
f an
impr
oper
ly p
arke
d ve
hicl
e m
ay b
elia
ble
in ca
se o
f col
lisio
n, th
e dr
iver
of a
mov
ing
vehi
cle
who
had
no o
ppor
tuni
ty t
o av
oid
the
colli
sion
due
to
his
own
mak
ing
is n
ot r
elie
ved
of l
iabi
lity,
suc
h as
whe
n hi
sne
glig
ence
is
the
imm
edia
te a
nd p
roxi
mat
e ca
use
of t
heco
llisi
on.
(Aus
tria
vs.
Cou
rt o
f Ap
peal
s, 32
7 SC
RA 6
68[2
000]
)
o0o
C
opyr
ight
201
6 C
entra
l Boo
k S
uppl
y, In
c. A
ll rig
hts
rese
rved
.
